As the United States approaches its November 3 midterm elections, economic concerns tied to foreign policy are emerging as a significant factor influencing voter sentiment. Traditionally, international affairs have played a limited role in midterm outcomes, with domestic economic issues taking precedence. However, rising costs linked to President Donald Trump’s foreign policy decisions appear to be reshaping that dynamic ahead of this election cycle.
Recent polling data indicate that a substantial portion of Americans—approximately 78% according to a Reuters/Ipsos survey—attribute escalating prices, which are outpacing wage growth, to Trump’s policies. This marks a shift reminiscent of the 2006 midterms, when dissatisfaction over President George W. Bush’s handling of the Iraq war contributed to Republican losses in both the House and Senate. Analysts suggest the current backlash could be even more pronounced, as voters feel the impact of high gasoline prices and increased grocery costs more acutely than in previous decades.
Christopher Preble, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center in Washington, commented that voters are increasingly connecting their economic struggles directly to the administration’s foreign policy. This perception has prompted Trump to take controversial steps aimed at easing some pressures before the elections. Notably, he lifted sanctions on Russian diesel exports in an effort to reduce fuel prices domestically. Critics, including some Republicans, argue this move signals a growing alignment with Moscow amidst Russia’s ongoing conflict with Ukraine.
In addition, Trump has urged the Ukrainian government to suspend attacks on Russian refineries, an attempt observers interpret as an effort to shift responsibility for rising U.S. gasoline prices. Experts widely agree that these energy cost increases stem largely from the broader international tensions, including the conflict the U.S. and Israel have engaged in against Iran over the past eight months.
Despite public assurances that no new military actions against Iran will be initiated before the midterms, reports suggest that both the United States and Israel are preparing for potential escalations following the vote. Most U.S. voters appear opposed to a prolonged conflict; Trump had campaigned on avoiding new foreign interventions but has since insisted that Americans bear temporary economic burdens to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran denies pursuing nuclear arms, asserting its program’s civilian nature, a position supported by assessments from the United Nations nuclear watchdog and U.S. intelligence indicating Tehran ended weapons development in 2003.
Within the Republican Party, there is some divergence from Trump’s approach on foreign policy and trade issues. Several candidates have distanced themselves from his confrontational stance on Iran, his trade disputes with Canada, and his pressure tactics regarding Ukraine. Meanwhile, Iranian officials report efforts to maintain elevated oil prices by targeting shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz and prolonging diplomatic stalemates, aiming to exacerbate U.S. economic pain and influence midterm outcomes.
The midterms have historically served as a referendum on the incumbent president’s performance, with voters predominantly driven by economic realities. This cycle, however, underscores the increasing fusion of foreign policy with economic consequences, making international affairs a decisive factor in the electoral calculus.